Read it as dual welding and was quite impressed by the concept.

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike

D&D isn’t a real world simulator. It values them all equally.

As far as I remember the rules, unarmed strike damage is 1 + Str modifier (i.e., a 1d1 damage die). And anyone untrained in unarmed strikes (not monk, not having the Tavern Brawler feat or similar) couldn’t add their prof bonus to the attack roll. This makes it significantly weaker than a proper dual wielding build or something like PAM, where the attacker typically gets a proper damage die and prof bonus. Which is why it doesn’t seem like a big deal to allow it.

Unarmed strikes can be done for flavor with kicks, elbows, etc. But mechanically I’d allow it as a proper bonus action if the character were wielding a single weapon without a shield. Anyone can describe anything however they want for flavor, I’m just talking about balancing the action economy.

I was more thinking about the abstraction of things like character classes and levels. “I’m a knight and can only more in L-shapes.” or “I’m a seventh level human.” That’s what I mean about it being more like a board game than an RPG. Compare “I’m a third level barbarian” to, eg, Call of Cthulhu and “I’m a pilot who was a POW in WWI which is when I picked up fluency in German.” One of those is a potential character, the other is just a playing piece.

Free actions? In this economy?

The whole basis of this (nonsense) argument, and related ones, is that “weapon” is defined as “one of the entries in the ‘weapons’ table in the DMG”, rather than y’know, the normal meaning of the word. But there is zero indication that this’d be the case, it’s just powergaming chudslop.

Treantmonk has been a disaster for tbe 5e community.

If you are with a mermaid with this, can you summon the amulate from around their neck?

In what way? The die tell you success rate so you can’t just say “I succeed at everything” and you use your creativity to bring it all to life.

Your comment as written, especially with the clear example in my first comment, reads like “I’m not creative enough to work within the system”. I’m guessing that isn’t your point but I’m not sure what else to read it as.

Well, yeah. If the sword is so heavy that you need two hands to wield it…then, it’s a two-handed weapon. It’s only considered “dual wielding” if both your hands are holding separate weapons. So, sword in one hand and an empty handed attack with the other, counts.

You technically can’t do an unarmed strike if you have a 2hander. Quarterstaves are versatile weapons, which allow for monks to do kicks while using them.

I know what you said, but the mechanics still don’t allow for kicks with a regular 2hander. I was trying to rationalise the actual mechanics with some real world logic.

Unarmed strikes with kicks and elbows and such aren’t just flavor, it’s written in the rules that you can use any part of your body.

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.

The mechanics don’t state you need a free hand anywhere.

Do you know where it says you can’t unarmed strike while holding a two handed weapon? I’m not seeing a requirement for a free hand in the rules.

Yes, I’m aware what the rules say. And those rules specify that an unarmed attack is one option when doing a melee attack. And there are other rules that specify when you can make a melee attack. OPs post was noting the weirdness of D&D, in that there are some things that aren’t explicitly specified in the rules. Specifically, whether using two fists counts as dual-wielding (RAW, it doesn’t).

According to the rules, characters can make a melee attack when performing the Attack action (plus in a number of other cases). Most of the time, the Attack action involves one or more attacks with a weapon (martial classes get more than one starting at level 5).

So any weapon attack can be substituted as an unarmed attack. A character wielding a greataxe who can normally make two attacks with the Attack action could substitute one or both of those attacks with kicks, elbows, or for flavor, releasing the weapon with one hand and bitchslapping their opponent.

The question isn’t whether someone wielding other weapons can make an unarmed attack, it’s a question of when. More specifically, when can a character use a bonus action to make an unarmed attack.

The rules also contain information about dual-wielding weapons:

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

OP’s post calls out that fighting bare-fisted would not qualify as two-weapon fighting, and thus RAW a character fighting unarmed could not use a Bonus Action to make an additional attack (despite “wielding” two fists).

My point was that, as a GM, I would rule that fighting unarmed, or fighting with a single one-handed weapon and not having a shield, would qualify as being able to make an additional attack with a bonus action per the two weapon fighting rules.

But per the rules, landing an unarmed attack in this scenario would result in a maximum of one (1) point of damage, as the Str modifier would not be added to the damage (unless the character had some other benefit that improved it, such as a class feature or feat). So there’s no reason to not allow it, as it’s a pretty weak option.

They specifically don’t require a free hand

To be fair, the official D&D rules call it “Two-Weapon Fighting”. Not sure if it’s to avoid this confusion.

Identical weapons are what I typically picture in that scenario, but it makes sense mechanically to allow different types (especially with a rapier/dagger combo being a thing in a lot of fantasy, and probably historically? I dunno).

Jarvis, translate this comment into English

that is helpful.

I probably am also getting mixed memories from playing TMNT/palladium, which had some kind of specialization for two of the same weapons… unless my brain is absolute tapioca, which, considering the hellscape out there, isn’t much of a stretch…

It literally means that you are wielding two. Not a pair.

guess that makes sense.

In actual reality people are quite bad at coordinating similar weapons and don’t get much benefit out of it.

so this is what led me to really think on this one: if people are inherently bad going at it with two of the same, a specialization / class benefit / perk whatev that made each weapon equally effective would incentivize that pursuit.

know it’s very much fantasy. rapier and buckler / parrying dagger / daisho - these let you use your dominant arm for the larger weapon and play defensively (esp buckler) - same with a knight wielding a shield and sword - to my goofy logic this wouldn’t require a special skill or perk, hence wouldn’t be dual wielded.

but, as stated in other replies, I’m also probably mixing up rpg systems like palladium’s rules too, because most of my playtime was a few decades ago lol, and tho I played AD&D and 2.5, I payed a lot more tmnt.

is there something in 5e for paired weapons then?